Thought: Dragon Priority

There may be a few spoilers regarding MLG Dallas in this post. Consider yourself forewarned.

There were many fantastic games over the weekend, but rather than highlight any particular one game I'd like to focus on an interesting trend I've noticed across all of LCS and Season 3 thus far. It's something Gambit Gaming has picked up on and made central to their strategy. Specifically, Dragon is more valuable early than turrets.

The strategy Gambit Gaming, and some others, employed was to simply take every Dragon during the early-game, even if it meant committing all five members of the team and losing a turret. Dragon is considered more valuable because the outer turrets are almost guaranteed to fall eventually. Thus, taking a turret in exchange for Dragon will only temporarily keep the teams even in gold. The team that prioritizes Dragon has an advantage because they evenly trade a permanent advantage for a temporary one, and eventually the other team will have to pay the piper.

The key to the strategy is the initial mid-game team fight. If the Dragon-hoarding team wins that first, crucial team fight they'll easily gain several thousand gold on their opponents due to all of the easy objectives within reach, regardless of their relative position before the fight started. Even without a decisive win, it's far harder to defend outer turrets than inner ones, meaning even a disadvantaged team is likely to make up ground. The result is a near-guaranteed slingshot effect, where the team which had yet to take towers will catapult forward.

This is not an invincible strategy, but it appeared to be a very reliable one for Gambit Gaming. It took them all the way to the international exhibition finals, and almost made them the victors. It was only KT Rolster B's superior early game pressure, consistently shutting down Darien, which kept Gambit in check.

I've mentioned this to a number of people in a number of places, and the reaction has been largely the same every time. Practically everyone becomes immediately concerned about map control, citing how the loss of one's jungle, increased necessity of wards, and the like negates any benefits. Given how prominently this strategy was on display, especially during the first two games between Gambit and KT Rolster B, I myself was, in turn, surprised by the reactions.

Map control is an issue, but I believe it to be nowhere near as dire as others seem to believe, at least competitively. Against a coordinated team who wards as a team and reacts as a team, jungle invasion and aggressive map control are risky even with turrets down. The potential for the defending team to intercept incursions is high with proper warding, and the likelihood that there are unsuspecting players to catch out of position is low. Especially with GG Edward prioritizing warding and clearing wards over personal development, the map control issue seems born out of solo queue experience more than competitive. At the very least, Gambit Gaming was not particularly inhibited by this.

It's also important to note the progressive nature of the exchanges. One does not instantly trade three turrets for Dragon, but does so over the course of 12 minutes. For much of that time map control is still assured due to the remaining turrets and the developmental stage of both teams. It's only when the mid-game is effectively in progress that map control becomes a major issue, and that's when the strategy calls for team-fighting in order to begin making up the difference.

Again, the strategy isn't perfect or without counter, but I believe it's more effective than many players will realize. It has potential applications in both solo queue and ranked 5s, and should be carefully considered by any competitive player.

Thought: On Quinn

It's too early to have any hard opinions on Quinn, but I have a few observations.

Quinn seems to have a few issues in a duo lane. Her very short range makes her vulnerable to longer ranged champions, and more susceptible to being crowd controlled. This also weakens a lot of her abilities considerably. With greater restrictions on her positioning it's hard to land her Blinding Assault or follow up on her passive, and using her Vault offensively is dangerous as it removes her primary escape mechanism. She's not completely worthless, but she feels weak in that position.

However, Quinn appears to excel in a solo lane. Her ability to roam with her ultimate is extremely significant. One on one it's much easier to force an opponent into a position where her Blinding Assault harass is deadly, and to follow up on her passive. Her Heightened Senses is also an excellent tool for a champion who can only ward one ganking path. There are very few ranged carry champions who can exert map pressure like she can.

I worry that her short range will be a liability against many mid champions, but I won't know how much of a factor that will be until I have further opportunities to try her out. In the meantime, remember that you can interrupt Vault's backward jump with Flash, and that Vault will chase flashing/dashing targets ala Maokai.

Thought: Xerath and Double AP

During yesterday's LCS matches Reginald brought out the oft-overlooked Xerath. For some time I've considered Xerath to be an underappreciated champion, in particular because of the vast amounts of Magic Resistance he can simply ignore. TSM took advantage of this facet of Xerath by incorporating him into a Double AP team composition.

The cleverness here is obvious. Depending on how many runes Xerath commits to Magic Penetration, he can completely bypass between 105 and 140 Magic Resistance. Even a target with 300 Magic Resistance will effectively be reduced to 70 as far as Xerath is concerned. As a result, investing in Magic Resistance is only effective against one champion, and failing to build Magic Resistance would be equally bad.

While the composition met with mixed success, in large part due to misplaced Xerath ultimates, the principle behind it is sound. Forcing your opponents into suboptimal choices is a very strong strategy, as even if they do what's "correct" they're getting weaker returns on their investments than you are. Xerath in a Double AP composition is a textbook example of that principle.

Still, Xerath himself seems to have a few issues. The awkwardness of his wave clear, his mana consumption, and his dependence on never missing a skill shot were extremely obvious in the TSM versus MRN game. I'm not sure he deserves a buff, but he definitely has exploitable flaws.

Thought: Ashe

There's an utterly hilarious thread on the official forums calling for Ashe buffs or quality of life changes through the medium of comical conversations between Ashe and other champions. It's worth a read, and started the analytical gears rolling.

Ashe is a fairly balanced champion, but her kit has two of the most awkward abilities in the game. Her passive and the passive effect of Hawkshot are problematic in a myriad of ways.

The problem with Ashe's passive is that it's fairly useless in both laning and team fighting. Aside from the guarantee of a level 1 crit, the need to constantly last-hit or auto-attack prevents the passive from stacking. You can try for crits between creep waves, but generally it's a null factor.

Hawkshot's passive, meanwhile, is notable only for it's mediocrity. Maxing it first sacrifices Ashe's only reliable offensive ability and poke for a small return in gold. While an additional four gold per creep is substantial (you'll have at least one rank normally anyway), missing a single creep due to having no way to respond to an aggressive lane negates almost an entire creep wave of last-hits. On the other hand, by the time you finally max Hawkshot (last) most of your farming is done, giving minimal impact. Whatever you do, Hawkshot's passive isn't worth much.

I have a simple idea that could possibly fix the awkwardness, swap the passives.

With gold generation tied to Ashe's passive she would no longer need to worry about the folly of trying to level it first or the uselessness of leveling it last. Instead, the passive would scale similarly to Nasus' passive, reaching full power at level 11. Some balancing would be necessary, but the awkwardness would be gone.

Shifting the Critical Strike effect to Hawkshot would not only work mechanically, but thematically. It's more intuitive to tie Critical Strikes to vision than gold generation. While this would create some tension between level 1 choices (you could no longer try to abuse a guaranteed crit at level 1 combined with Volley), it's a sound, simple change.

The key to these changes is that Ashe, while not picked often competitively, currently has a fairly average winrate. Changing her crit passive to work meaningfully in team fights or laning would possibly imbalance her. Instead, I'm simply suggesting a change that will only make her slightly more intuitive and understandable, without dramatically buffing her.

Thought: Spectral Wraith for Jungle Akali

Hextech Gunblade has been Akali's quintessential item for some time, having usurped the now ancient Rylai's into Lich Bane combo shortly after patch 105. It's easy to see why Gunblade is so critical to Akali; it provides her with a hefty 27.5% Spell Vamp, 65 Ability Power, and an extremely useful active. However, the recent cost reductions and buffs to Spirit of the Spectral Wraith have caused me to reconsider Gunblade's position when jungling Akali.

Compared head to head, Spectral Wraith is clearly inferior to Gunblade. The stats on Spectral Wraith are all lower, save for the addition of 10% Cooldown Reduction. Its passives, while nifty, can't adequately be compared to Gunblade's incredible Active. If asked to choose between the two any player worth their salt would pick Gunblade, it's simply the obvious choice.

Unfortunately for Gunblade, that head to head comparison is deeply flawed for one simple reason: cost. Spectral Wraith is 1400 gold cheaper than Gunblade, an absolutely staggering difference in price. Because Akali, like most junglers, starts Hunter's Machete she's also 300 gold closer to completing Spectral Wraith than she is Gunblade from the outset of the game. In short, Spectral Wraith can be completed 1700 gold sooner than Gunblade when jungling.

To call the gold gap between the two items significant would be an egregious understatement. 1700 gold is a large number even for champions or roles with top farm priority. For junglers, who often defer to everyone but supports, it's enormous. The size of this gap should immediately cause any veteran jungler to pause and question whether the stats and benefits of Gunblade are worth that cost.

It's a difficult question to evaluate because almost all of the stats involved defy typical cost-analysis. Mana Regeneration and Life Steal are essentially worthless to Akali, Attack Damage's value is confused by her passives, and most of the remaining stats have no clear basis for a gold value. To a significant extent it is subjective, a judgement based on one's jungling experience.

There are, however, a few ways of approaching the problem that are useful. Comparing builds first when Spectral Wraith is completed, and subsequently when Gunblade is completed, can give insight into the value of each.

The moment Spectral Wraith is finished Gunblade should have Machete, Revolver, and Long Sword with a little gold to spare. At this point the Spectral Wraith build has an additional 10 AP, 10% Cooldown Reduction, 6.33% Spell Vamp, and significantly faster jungle clears when compared to the Gunblade build. The mere 10 Attack Damage from Long Sword is hardly enough to match the power surge from completing Spectral Wraith.

This timing is important because of the opportunities it presents. Clearing faster makes it easier to farm while maintaining map presence, making it likely that Spectral Wraith Akali will begin earning gold faster than Gunblade Akali. At the same time the Gunblade build just entered a lull period as it invests the next 1435 gold into more Attack Damage and valueless Life Steal. Just as Spectral Wraith Akali starts taking off, Gunblade Akali is winding down.

When Gunblade finally finishes there are a number of ways the Spectral Wraith build could have allocated the 1700 gold (or more) difference. If Spectral Wraith Akali rushed a Kage's Lucky Pick, it's possible that she'll have both that and another Revolver completed (due to gold per 10). Alternatively, she could simply save up and buy a Needlessly Large Rod. She could also begin working toward Rylai's, sporting a Giant's Belt and possibly a Blasting Wand. In all cases Spectral Wraith Akali has a significant Ability Power advantage, and is well on her way to completing another key item. Gunblade Akali may be about to leverage a strong timing, but Spectral Wraith Akali is already more than halfway to her second.

It's this early impact followed by additional early timings which has lead me to significantly improve my appraisal of Spectral Wraith. The clear speed difference is extremely noticeable, enough so that I wouldn't be surprised if the Spectral Wraith Akali farmed a significant advantage. Factor in that both builds will likely want to finish Sorcerer's Shoes before Gunblade is finished, and there's plenty of time for Spectral Wraith Akali to pull well ahead with or without gold per 10.

For Akali, who depends heavily on turning early momentum into further power, the allure of Spectral Wraith is undeniable. Spending 500 gold for 10 AP, 8% Spell Vamp, 10% Cooldown Reduction, and ridiculously faster clears is obviously an efficient and valuable investment. The next time I jungle Akali, I'll be putting this through its paces.

Thought: The Brush Crutch

As I've been duo queuing around the 1300 Elo range with Miscue a lot recently, I've noticed an addiction nearly all aggressive support players suffer from at that level. Because Miscue is a champion wardmeister, every Blitzcrank, Leona, or Thresh we come across finds themselves largely useless. These players are utterly reliant on the uncertainty of the brush to use their champions, and once that is taken away from them there's very little they can do but pray for horrible misplays (which, unfortunately, do happen).

It's easy to see how these players reach this point. Inexperienced or particularly stingy opponents avoid warding as much as possible, and when they do it's to spot incoming ganks. The idea of dropping 75g to ward the inconsequential lane brush is unthinkable. Because so few players ward brush at low levels of play, even with a Sightstone, it's easy for aggressive support players to rely heavily on the brush to exert pressure.

Unfortunately, it all falls apart as you move upward in ranking. By simply positioning well and/or using wards, good duos will nullify the efforts of any support relying too heavily on brush. It quickly becomes impossible to exert pressure without moving into the open. There the brush-reliant players flounder, having largely failed to learn the skills necessary to exert pressure outside the tall grass.

This goes back to the concept of zones of control. Brush allows you to extend your zone of control because your opponents can't quite be sure where you are and what angles you might attack from. It also allows you to enter into an opponent's zone of control without much risk of incurring damage. When these advantages are nullified, the players who rely on them are forced into an uncomfortable position. Unused to being subject to the full extent of their opponents' zones of control, and to the reduced effectiveness of their own, these players either become too cautious or too heedless of danger.

All aggressive supports are perfectly functional outside of the brush. Learning to play them there is critical to being effective in the higher echelons of ranked play. It takes time, attention, and patience, but learning how to pressure opponents without relying on brush will make you a better support, even when the brush is available.

Thought: Think

It is often said that the current culture of the United States, my home country, rewards and encourages instant-gratification, impatience, and a severe lack of focus. In my experience this is quite true, and it presents a severe handicap for anyone attempting to improve or test ideas in League of Legends.

There is a significant extent to which one can improve simply through brute force. Play often enough and through simple osmosis and observation almost all players will get better at the game. However, eventually they will reach a wall which cannot be breached by simply force. Eventually, all players have to stop, reflect, and consciously consider what is required to continue moving foward.

This is where the culture of the now, the instantaneous, and the immediate undermines efforts to progress. It takes time, thought, and patience to step back and deconstruct the events of a game into digestible, informative bites. Meanwhile the large, friendly "Play Again" button presents an invitation to the next adrenaline rush, the IP counter looms in the corner begging to increase, and the thrill or disappointment of losing or gaining Elo defies the concept of a moment's pause. Who has time for analysis when there are game to be played?

Our distractibility manifests itself in many ways. Players don't practice their last-hitting outside of games, even after particularly horrendous performances. They don't test junglers and their routes, even though it's the single easiest form of practice in the game. Not a moment is spent thinking about where they are, what they are doing. All of these myriad obstacles, and countless others, conspire to constrain a player's potential.

The solution to all these problems is simple. Stop, and think. Maybe for just a few minutes the first time, maybe fifteen minutes later. Gradually, carefully exercise your ability to sit and think about something without distractions. Relearn and rediscover what it means to focus.

It's hard in a word of apps, facebook updates, texts, and constant connectedness, but the ability to simply think is one which will serve you well beyond the virtual conflicts of Runeterra.

Thought: Replacing Urgot

I discussed Marn's Urgot-based composition yesterday, but it suffers from one notable flaw; enemy teams can always ban Urgot. A few opponents did, and while Marn still moved forward and snagged a spot amongst the salaried teams of Season 3, they had no alternative setup for this playstyle. Without Urgot Marn simply chose somewhat traditional team compositions.

Replacing Urgot isn't necessarily easy, as he does bring a lot to the team. His range his short, but he has excellent poke, an incredibly strong crowd control ability, innate tankiness, and super-strong laning. There is no perfectly analogous champion, but with a few small modifications to playstyle and composition there are possible candidates.

Jayce is one of the most obvious choices to replace Urgot. He has fairly decent poke, great team utility, potent tower pushing, and the ability to all-in bruiser style on opponents. Taric could still serve as a decent support for him, but he could easily be paired with other tanky supports and still be effective. Leona would be a good option to make up for the loss of initiation, and Thresh, the upcoming champion, could also serve as a potent support.

Nidalee is another possible option. Built as a bruiser she can serve to push towers with or without the team. However, her utility is strongest when her team isn't fighting, and many of her abilities rely on Ability Power to be potent. She's not a bad option, but she lacks the oomph that Jayce and Urgot bring.

Any other bruiser could potential serve, but they are all notable in that none of them have ranged attacks. While many of them have ways to farm at range, pushing towers is another matter. You'll have to modify the plan if you were counting on using range to help push towers from safety.

Of those bruisers, Zed stands out for his infinite harass/farming, slipperiness, AoE clearing, assassination potential, and incredible scaling. Once his ultimate is available any crowd control from a support spells death. While he lacks the ability to push towers from range, the danger he presents to the enemy carries is enormous.

These aren't the only options, but they are the first I would try as alternatives to Urgot. If the Urgot composition is truly too much for any traditional carry to handle, finding variations in the inevitable event of Urgot bans is the key to truly breaking the meta.

Thought: Analyzing Team Marn

On the final day of the NA Season 3 Qualifiers, Team Marn picked an identical team composition three times, winning each game it was used. Today I'll analyze that team composition.

Marn's Winning Team Composition:

• Top: Olaf
• Jungle: Nocturne
• Mid: Ahri
• Bottom: Urgot/Taric

What should stand out immediately in this composition is the use of Urgot. Urgot is technically an AD Carry, but because of his incredibly short auto-attack range, lack of steroids, tankiness, and spammable Q, he tends to be built and played more like a bruiser. Urgot's lane harass and ability to assist ganks is legendary. It is not without reason that he is considered one of the strongest anti-carries in the game.

The potency of this pick becomes obvious when you consider how it alters team fights. Without a squishy AD Carry to focus or chase out of the fight, Marn's opponents had no clear target. Focusing Urgot would be to expend effort on possibly the tankiest target, and getting close to him would be extremely dangerous as at any moment his ultimate might catch someone. Olaf can completely ignore entire teams using his ultimate, and does incredible damage while still building tanky. Ahri is one of the most slippery and hard to catch AP carries in the game. There were no good targets on Marn's team, barring catching someone out of position.

Meanwhile, Marn had many easy targets. There were plenty of squishy champions for them to choose from when stunning, diving, or swapping places, pressuring their opponents while they themselves could be relatively relaxed. While Urgot's range would normally make him weak as a tower pusher, his tankiness, and the threat of a swap or charm, gave Marn all the pushing power they needed.

The carries facing Marn also had very little room for error. Nocturne and Olaf, two of the best divers in the game, could dive with impunity knowing that the rest of their team was largely self-sufficient. At the same time, the combination of Olaf, Taric, and Ahri meant that anyone swapped or caught would be chain controlled and burst down.

Ahri, Nocturne, and Taric were all excellent picks for the playstyle. Each is right at home in clustered, messy fights because of their AoE, while also bringing other key benefits to the team. Taric dramatically amplifies the threat of Urgot during the laning phase, as his stun and Shatter combo is an easy setup for Urgot's harass, while also providing sustain. Late-game, Taric's steroids increase his teams tankiness and damage, and his stun is excellent for dealing with potential dangers such as Katarina or Vayne. Nocturne increases early pressure across all lanes with his ward-bypassing ultimate, and augments a diving Olaf by providing additional control and danger. Ahri, again, is simply one of the hardest AP carries to kill, can catch opponents with Charm during sieges, and is more than happy to skirt around the edges of a messy fight. While this team composition is centered around Urgot, and to an extent Olaf, these picks round it out nicely and helped to make it a dominating force during the qualifiers.

While Marn changed strategies after Dirt Nap Gaming banned Urgot, the underlying principles behind the composition could potentially be applied with other champions. Using a tanky bruiser or pseudo-bruiser bottom in place of an AD carry could prove to be a winning strategy against traditional compositions. That remains to be seen, but the possibilities are tantalizing.

Thought: The Future of AD Carries

As discussed yesterday, AD carries are in a bit of a bind. The many changes in Season 3, combined with the proliferation of assassins and AD casters, has made running away the hallmark of their role in team fights. The problem is large and important enough to draw the attention of players across the globe, and many notable voices are weighing in.

For my part, I see two solutions to the issue:

1. Build tankier on AD carries, allowing them to survive burst and contribute to the fight.
2. Replace AD carries with another champion, and approach the problems of taking towers/objectives another way.

Obviously #2 is a little more drastic than #1, but we'll be discussing both.

Building tankier on AD carries seems problematic in that it will cut into the multiplicative scaling which makes them so prized. With fewer items dedicated to offense, the AD carry won't reach the ridiculous levels of damage that allow them to win team fights later in the game. In the end, can AD carries still be effective if they aren't able to dedicate four items to offense?

The problem is actually very similar to one that occasionally pops up in MMORPGs with raiding and dungeons as a core part of gameplay. There are often unavoidable damage sources in a fight, and if you don't have sufficient defenses to survive them it doesn't matter how good of a healer or damage dealer you are, you can't do much while you're dead. The same principle applies here, all that multiplicative damage scaling is useless if you don't survive long enough to make use of it.

A lot does depends on the carry in question. Carries with good AD scaling and built-in steroids will do inherently better with fewer offensive items. Graves, Vayne, and Kog'maw are excellent examples of this. Those who rely on achieving a critical mass of items won't do quite so well. The list of popular carries is bound to shift and change, as damage increases in importance versus mobility.

However, it's also true that multiplicative scaling is heavily reliant on having all factors represented. To drop one item in favor of defenses is to dramatically reduce a carry's late game damage. If their damage doesn't end up being significant better than that of another champion, why not simply have another champion?

Aside from multiplicative damage, the primary reason for having an AD carry is to siege turrets. To replace them requires having an alternative strategy. It might be split-pushing, diving, or simply overwhelming the opponent through jungle/objective control, but a strategy must be present. AD carries, however, have shone as the safest method of pushing a turret for some time.

There are reasonably close alternatives. A number of bruiser champions have sufficient range to siege turrets as well. Jayce, Nidalee, and Kayle have the range and the item builds for the job. Quite a few AP champions also have a good deal of range, and with a lot of AP and/or Lich Bane can do significant damage to turrets. If teams fail to find a consistent answer to assassins, these are alternatives that don't demand a radical change in how towers are taken late-game.

As things stands, AD carries are certainly still viable, especially if the enemy team lacks assassins or AD casters, so it's unlikely they'll disappear entirely. At the same time, the likelihood that we will see compositions with no AD carry at all is the highest it may ever be.

Thought: Of Assassins and Carries

The game is still in a state of flux following the massive Season 3 changes, and will remain so for some time. Black Cleaver stacking was just the tip of the iceberg, the first shot in what will be a long series of metas, overpowered champions, and heretofore unheard of item builds.

Murky as the future may be, there is at least one clear trend in the present which deserves attention. Assassins and AD casters have exploded in popularity, to the detriment of AD carries. Unless a coordinated team is prepared to peel for an AD carry, they can expect to spend most of a team fight running for their life with death the punishment for the smallest misstep. This isn't limited to the NA servers either; players and publications in Korea have been discussing the issue. The usefulness and necessity of the AD carry role is, for the first time since before Season 1, seriously being called into question.

So what, exactly, happened in Season 3 to make AD carries so vulnerable?

First and foremost, the vast majority of AD carry items received significant nerfs. Phantom Dancer's movement speed was made identical to Zeal and it costs more than before. Bloodthirster's Life Steal was reduced. Infinity Edge lost Attack Damage. Guardian Angel's defenses and passive were heavily nerfed. Overall, AD carries do less damage than before, have less defense, and are less mobile.

At the same time, the new itemization isn't sufficient to make up the difference. Runaan's Hurricane, as interesting an item as it may seem, isn't useful if you can't kite your opponents long enough to do damage. Statikk Shiv is a worse version of Phantom Dancer. Sword of the Divine has limited usefulness if you can't kill your target outright with it. The only light in the tunnel is the new Mercurial Scimitar, except it actually helps assassins and AD casters as much or more. In short, the Season 3 itemization changes did little except nerf AD carries.

On top of all of that almost every Season 3 change buffed assassins and AD casters. Deathfire Grasp is now an incredible asset to assassins like Akali, Fizz, or LeBlanc. Black Cleaver is an insanely strong item for AD assassins and casters like Pantheon, Talon, Zed, and Kha'zix. Combined with the penetration changes and nerfs to defense, these champions are able to assassinate any carry who comes in range.

It is because of these circumstances that the usefulness of AD carries is being questioned. Is it worth babysitting them for so much of the game if, in the end, they don't do significantly more damage than a champion who requires half as much attention and care? Are AD carries really necessary for pushing/sieging turrets, or can we find a way to do it without them? Couldn't champions who become powerful much quicker be advantageous? These are the thoughts that have started crossing the minds of many players, and in the coming months we'll begin to harvest what these seeds have planted.

Tomorrow I'll write down my thoughts about how one might alter the role of the AD, or replace them outright. Stay tuned.

Thought: Neophobia

The League of Legends community is a complicated amalgamation of players, and any generalizations regarding it are typically of limited value. There are, however, some truths which can be firmly stated, one of which being the certainty of hostile resistance to that which is different.

Before I harp heavily on the problems that result, let me be clear that there are understandable reasons for this common attitude. League of Legends is a complicated game, and it's difficult enough as it is to play to the meta, let alone trying to play against it. When a player makes an unfamiliar choice for a role, build, or lane it's just as common for them to be trolling, selfish, or ill-prepared as to be carefully and methodically innovating. It's not simply fear of the unknown, but experience with abject failures that effects this viewpoint.

For the innovators, this means intense and unforgiving scrutiny. Every game where you jungle Akali, play Caitlyn mid, or test support Maokai is a game where the slightest failure, misstep, or questionable statement can bring a torrent of disparaging remarks and threats. Even in games where you have been effective and positive you remain a convenient target for blame. It's not enough to be as good as everyone else, you must be better.

As innocent and understandable as it may seem, this cultural hostility enforces and reinforces the rigid, unadaptable thinking which plagues many players. Players seek set build orders, the "best" champion picks, and "correct" strategies because they are conditioned to do so by the harsh, derisive judgement of their peers. Taught to mimic rather than to think, these players struggle to fill in the blanks whenever they encounter a unfamiliar problems and situations.

This often results in the common fixation on winning over learning. When you believe in an unambiguously right way to play there isn't much use in doing anything other than pursuing that one righteous path. From that perspective if you aren't playing to win, then you're trolling or messing around or otherwise being a burden on your team rather than an asset. While victory is obviously the objective of the game, this mindset is a quick ticket to getting stuck and looking at every patch as a punishment rather than an opportunity.

The slow-to-change meta also has its routes in communal neophobia. It takes tournaments, sweeping balance changes, or particularly intrepid players to alter the meta because the community is actively hostile to all but the most irrefutably potent ideas. Unless convincingly demonstrated, and even then, the community is content to sit on what worked historically even though the conditions in which those ideas prospered are long past.

Curing neophobia on a community level is likely impossible. While it's demonstrably better for everyone to experiment, learn, and improve, the convenience and mental effortlessness of sticking with the known is powerful. All that innovation nonsense is work; there are champions to be killed, creeps to be farmed, and towers to be pushed. The best we can do is work on the individual level, starting with ourselves.

Thought: Why Ezreal?

Despite hefty nerfs, Ezreal was still the premier carry at MLG Dallas. His continued popularity at the professional level isn't a coincidence, Ezreal has the best kit around for that level of play.

To understand what makes Ezreal so good competitively we'll have to cover a wide variety of topics. Hold on to your keyboards, because we're going to be diving through a whirlpool of mechanics, laning principles, and meta elements as we explore Ezreal's dominance.

That Ezreal is one of a limited set of AD carries with an repositioning ability is well known, but Ezreal is unique in that he is the only one with a blink. Blinks are nigh-instantaneous and mechanically different from the dashes and jumps that Graves, Corki, Tristana and Caitlyn all use. Dashes have a fatal flaw in that the champion's collision detection lags behind the dash, and jumps are even worse. The champion may look as though they have escaped the range of an ability, but in reality they are still hit and suffer the consequences. This makes using them to evade significantly more difficult. Blinks are not only faster than dashes, but can not be interrupted once they've begun. Even if a crowd control ability lands as you blink, the blink will still happen. Blinks also have far fewer issues when dealing with terrain. Because of all the advantages of blinks, Ezreal is a significantly safer pick.

Ezreal's security is further increased by Mystic Shot. Even when severely disadvantaged in lane, Ezreal can continue to farm from a great distance. This safety mechanism, combined with Ezreal's blink, makes zoning him nearly impossible if he plays his cards right. Mystic Shot also provides a tool for harass, skirmishing, and checking brush. That it also applies on-hit effects such as Sheen and Phage is icing on the cake. Ezreal is simply an extremely safe laning choice when put in the right hands.

The mid-game also happens to be both one of Ezreal's main strengths and the current focus of the professional meta. Essence Flux's use as a tower and objective pushing tool sets him above his peers. Trueshot Barrage is a powerful ability for clearing creep waves that either inhibit a tower push or pressure one of his own towers. Combined with Ezreal's safety, he's simply the best mid-game carry.

Normally I would predict that all of this would warrant further nerfs to Ezreal. However, with Season 3 on the way and vast revisions to masteries, items, and jungling, it's likely that Riot isn't going to nerf champions who happen to match the meta. For all his strengths Ezreal has poor creep clearing aside from his ultimate, and a relatively weak late game. In a different meta, such as the one which preceded what we have now, Ezreal could easily be the worst AD carry. If you're sick and tired of seeing Ezreal in every match, you'll have to wait until Season 3 begins in earnest.

Thought: Asian Ascension

Season 2 ends tomorrow, and with it the longstanding dominance of North American teams. At both the World Championships and MLG Dallas, the best teams this continent had to offer were thoroughly crushed. As we begin Season 3, it's important to understand how this happened, what it means, and what the future may hold.

For most of the past three years the League of Legends competitive scene didn't exist outside of North America and Europe. It wasn't until May 2011 that LoL launched in China and Taiwan, and South Korea didn't see the game until December. Without a thriving playerbase to draw talent from, eastern teams could not compete in those early days. Despite nearly a two year handicap Asian teams are now reigning supreme.

One of the many factors at work is basic infrastructure. While they may have started years behind, Asia is an eSports hotbed, complete with coaches, sponsors, gaming houses, institutional knowledge, and cultural recognition. The principles for running a LoL team are not remarkably different from running a team for StarCraft or CounterStrike, it was merely a matter of applying tools they already had at their disposal. Europe also has some of this infrastructure, which partially explains why European teams have recently been more competitive than North American teams. North America largely lacks these sources of support and organization, putting the continent at a disadvantage.

Another important factor is discipline. In part because of culture and the aforementioned infrastructure, Asian teams typically have extremely disciplined schedules, practice plans, and methods. They not only work harder, but also smarter. It's not enough for North American teams to start practicing for nine or ten hours a day, that practice needs to have direction and meaning. Some teams have begun making baby steps toward acquiring the infrastructure and discipline to maintain a presence on the world stage, but it will be years before the region as a whole can match what is already the norm overseas.

The rise of streaming as a popular and lucrative activity is also a critical factor. While streaming is seemingly innocuous, much of what constitutes good practice makes for poor entertainment (or a good way to tip your hand to your competitors). Streaming represents a conflict of interest for professional players; they can make a good deal of money from streaming if they're popular, but doing so can impact tournament performance. Failing to stream consistently and for extended periods can also cause viewers to migrate to other streamers. While it's possible to stream frequently without measurable problems, it's not simple. Arguably, all of the popular North American teams, and a number of European players, have at some point streamed at the cost of a tournament performance.

Ironically, going forward it may be streaming which saves the North American scene. Many other eSports have been dominated by Asian players and teams in the past, to the detriment of other regions. While viewers may begin to tune out international tournaments as their favorite teams flounder, the persistent and even increasing viewer numbers might preserve interest. So long as a given region is invested in its teams, even if it's only in watching them stream, the potential for regional improvement remains.

In the meantime, the next six months will bear witness to the increasing prominence of Asia in LoL. As hopeful as I am that this will be the eSport where North America finally gets its footing and establishes itself as a world contender, 2013 will be a rough year. TSM, the best North America have to offer, has been crushed in back to back tournaments, and it showed on their faces at MLG Dallas. Depending what happens next, we could have a renaissance as new faces emerge, or a rebirth of our current teams. If  these growing pains can be endured, North America may yet have a chance at the Season 3 World Championships.

Thought: Fixing Ranked Teams

It's no secret that the vast majority of players primarily play ranked games alone or with one other person. That's an odd situation for a game based largely on teams of five players competing against one another. While the interface for ranked teams has improved considerably from Season 1, arranged teams still haven't taken off. I believe I can identify a few of the root causes.

There are three core issues holding back arranged teams. First, the quantifiable incentives for playing ranked teams are identical to playing alone. Second, there are no social mechanisms which aid and support recruitment. Lastly, teams looking to compete have limited opportunities to do so. Because of these issues ranked teams are largely a hassle lacking justifiable reasons to bother.

We can understand the need for incentives better by examining the history of the 10-man/25-man raid divide in World of Warcraft. 25-player raids initially had superior rewards, attracting most of the attention and players. Later, 10-player raids were changed to feature the same rewards as 25-player raids. As a result of this change 25-player raid groups have been dying out. Because 10-player raid groups are easier to manage logistically and are less mechanically demanding they have become significantly more popular.

The solo queue/ranked team divide is the same. It's easier to dive into the queue solo, or with a duo partner, than to try and coordinate five or more people in a ranked team. At the same time the rewards for playing in a ranked team (e.g. influence points, end of season skins) are identical. It should not be surprising that players follow the path of least resistance and stick to solo/duo queue the majority of the time, and use normals or temporary teams when they happen to have more people around.

Recruitment is also a critical problem facing any player who wishes to create or maintain a team. Finding players whose schedules, mindsets, and skills match the needs of your group is difficult. Were League of Legends an MMORPG the basic mechanisms of the game itself would normally cause people to meet, socialize, and eventually cluster together. Because League of Legends lacks those social mechanisms players are left scrambling to recruit strangers from games or the official forums.

It's for that reason that most ranked teams tend to be either groups of real life friends or higher Elo players. In the former case the social circles and circumstances of real life act as a surrogate social mechanism. In the latter case the smaller pool of players makes repeated meetings common, resulting in a semblance of community. Not all teams follow these paradigms, but in most cases it's an outside social factor that acts as the catalyst for the team's creation.

Finally, even with due rewards and recruitment mechanisms, there's very little for your average team to strive for. The opportunities for competition are too limited to support the millions of players who might join a team. Go4LoL is the most notable open tournament and occurs weekly, but it can barely handle its current volume of teams. While it's important to avoid putting the cart before the horse, any effort to increase the popularity of ranked teams must include a plan for providing avenues for competition.

While the root causes are as I have described, fixing them is incredibly tricky. Balancing rewards, providing recruitment/management support, and creating competitive opportunities are all time-consuming, difficult problems to address. Moreover, it's not clear to what extent Riot should attempt to handle the latter two issues themselves, or leave it up to the community to create their own tools and competitions. One can hope that Season 3 will see an increase in ranked team emphasis, but for now it's not clear if or when ranked teams will take the limelight.

Thought: Secret Passive Escalation

Kha'zix, the upcoming champion, brings with him the latest in secret passives. If Kha'zix and Rengar are in a match together and Rengar possesses his Bonetooth Necklace, then shortly after Kha'zix hits level 16 a special buff appears on both of them indicating "The Hunt is On". Whoever first kills or assists a kill on the other receives a reward. Rengar's Bonetooth Necklace becomes the Head of Kha'zix, granting Rengar permanent full trophy stacks. Kha'zix gains a fourth evolution point. This new feature has caused quite a stir.

My own thoughts are divided. I see reasons both for and against this special interaction, and at any given time I lean one way or the other. It's a complicated issue that treads new ground, and it can be very hard to predict how these issues might affect the game in the long run.

A large number of players assert that the advantage conferred by this interaction is overpowering, but I contend that the advantage is both irrelevant to the vast majority of games and marginal even in games where it plays a role. Most games won't feature both Rengar and Kha'zix; assuming each champion appears in 25% of all games (a very high rate of play) only 6.25% of all games will have both. The majority of those remaining games will have been decided well before Kha'zix ever hits 16 and some will not even feature the Bonetooth Necklace (e.g. any game with AP Rengar), leaving only 1% of all games or fewer where the advantage even plays a role. In those few remaining games only a very small fraction will be determined by that advantage. At worst maybe 0.001% of all games will see an outcome changed by this feature.

Part of this is the lackluster nature of the advantages themselves. Rengar is practically guaranteed to have full stacks on his Bonetooth Necklace in a reasonably close game so long as he doesn't constantly run into the enemy team on his own and die without any assists; the advantage conferred by gaining the head of Kha'zix only applies when Rengar is very far behind (at which point it is unlikely to swing the game, its bonuses are good but not that good). Similarly, Kha'zix has two evolutions which are interesting but extremely situational, his W and R. Both are largely countered by wards and Oracle's, and even when they aren't they require very specific situations to make a big difference. While it's fun to have permanent stacks and that fourth evolution, they simply don't have the impact many players assume.

All of that said, there are some strong points to be made against this design decision. This secret passive is different from all others in that it confers a tangible advantage, however rarely it will actually determine a game. Players who are not aware of the special interaction will actually have a measurable disadvantage against those who are. This is unprecedented in the history of the game, and skirts the lines of what is an acceptable burden of knowledge.

The magnitude of this new secret passive is also many times greater than all its predecessors. All previous secret passives were either pure fluff or so mathematically unlikely to change an outcome that perhaps one game in the entire history of League of Legends will ever be determined by them. With hundreds of thousands of games being played daily, even small percentages can become meaningful. The "worst case" I outlined before could easily lead to hundreds of games every day where this interaction plays a significant role (though the chance of you being in that game is obviously very small).

It's a neat interaction, and it tickles my obsessive-compulsive tendencies to be able to get all four evolutions in a single game on Kha'zix. At the same time, it sets a dangerous precedent for secret passives. Were I in Riot's position I wouldn't even think of implementing further interactions for at least a half-year or more as the effects of this are sorted out.

Thought: Syndra and Malzahar

Yesterday I talked about winrates and how they do not necessarily indicate a champion is overpowered or underpowered. While that is correct, large deviations from the average typically indicate a problem.

Today Syndra's winrate has risen to 30%, up from 25%. This is 20% below the average. To an extent one expects technically challenging champions to start out below-average and work their way upwards. However, even Rengar had a 37% winrate at worst, and that included a bugged, unreliable snare. You could argue Syndra is more technical than Rengar, but to that large an extent? Not likely.

There isn't one problem which defines Syndra, but a plethora of small issues. Aiming her E to push her spheres into targets isn't easy, and is a critical skill for asserting lane control and sieging turrets. The substantial delay between the command to throw a sphere or minion to a location and its arrival is also an issue. Her mana costs across the board are hefty, with players claiming even Chalice is insufficient to solve her mana problems. To cap it off the range on Syndra's ultimate is dramatically shorter than all of her other abilities, a mismatch which cripples her. Taken all together, Syndra is a difficult champion to play for very little reward (aside from buff grabbing hijinks).

Yet, if LolKing or Elobuff's data went back two years one could find a champion who was even worse than Syndra. Malzahar, everyone's favorite prophet of doom, had the most underwhelming skillset of any champion ever launched.

The issues affecting Malzahar were many. His Voidlings moved significantly slower and attacked whatever they pleased, which was rarely anything useful. His mana costs were higher, making him even more reliant on his Malefic Visions to maintain his mana pool. His ultimate's range was pathetic, an amazingly bad 475. To add insult to injury his ultimate's duration, and by proxy damage, were shortened by Mercury's Treads and completely countered by Cleanse. Malzahar was utterly horrible.

Malzahar was so bad that in the patches that followed he received a total of fifteen buffs, with one small nerf reducing the effect of a previous buff. It was half a year after those buffs, and a substantial shift in the meta, that he saw any further changes. Since then he's received as many buffs as he has nerfs, making it clear just how underpowered he was initially.

Syndra reminds me of Malzahar because her issues are similar in nature, though not as severe. I expect to see changes to the responsiveness of her abilities, the range of her ultimate, and her mana costs in the near future, mirroring many of Malzahar's early buffs. She's also very fun despite her issues, which was the case for Malzahar as well.

Thought: Winrates and Balance

It's becoming extremely popular to judge the value of a champion by their winrates (as recorded by LolKing or Elobuff). Champions with winrates below 50% are judged to be underpowered, while those above must be overpowered. This idea seems logical enough, but it has a few flaws.

The primary problem is that the League of Legends community is both stubborn and fickle. The community is quick to label flavor of the month champions as overpowered, underplayed champions as underpowered, and throws new champions into either category based on initial impressions alone. It generally takes months for the community to changes its mind, and even then the process is slow and begrudging. Only in extreme cases, such as the abusive Nunu top build pioneered by SmashGizmo, is there a sudden flip in perceptions.

As a result, champions or meta-shifts that might counter those with high winrates often go unnoticed. When Nautilus was released he was considered a subpar jungler, unable to keep up with Shyvana, Mundo, and Udyr, the titans of farming. It took three months for him to slowly shift from being underpowered and ignored to a first-ban meta-breaking ganking machine. Nautilus almost single-handedly shifted the jungle meta toward tanky, gank-heavy initiators, where it has remained ever since.

Before Nautilus everyone had simply assumed that Shyvana, Mundo, and Udyr were overpowered farmers with no counters. While LolKing and Elobuff weren't around in those days, it's very likely we would have seen all three with above-average winrates. Today, long after Nautilus received nerfs and faded from the spotlight, those three champions still sport below-average winrates. Defeating them only required a simple shift in community awareness and the meta.

This sort of obliviousness is pervasive, and means we cannot take winrates at face value. There is a correlation between winrates and a champion's strength, but that isn't the only possible cause. It is necessary to account for the community's blindspot and carefully the role the meta, typical champion picks, and playstyles play in determining a champion's strength. Winrates, like all data, are at their most useful when appraised carefully.

Thought: Season 2 Rankings

The cutoffs for the final brackets for Season 2 have been revealed. Of note is the addition of a diamond ranking beyond platinum for the best of the best, and the use of top rating instead of current rating.

The latter of these changes addresses an issue that arose at the end of Season 1. Because the season kept getting extended, players who had achieved rankings had to fight with Elo decay to maintain them. Each extension caught players unaware and unprepared, resulting in lots of confusion and irritation. By making top rating the key to a ranking, players need not fret about Elo decay once they've achieved their goal.

However, this change also allows players to use friends or Elo boosting services to push their accounts into brackets they have not earned. It doesn't matter that the boosted player's Elo will dramatically crash shortly thereafter, they'll have achieved a gold/platinum/diamond top rating regardless. It should surprise no one that this possibility has many players up in arms.

I don't begrudge anyone for wanting rewards, but these sorts of shortcuts cheapen the accomplishments of others. While nothing can change the fact that it was my own skill which carried me to platinum, the context surrounding that fact can be changed. The value of my accomplishment is muddled when other players abuse the system.

How widespread a problem this will become I don't know. It won't keep me from shooting for diamond, but it gives me pause as I consider how people will view rankings in Season 3.

Thought: Splash Art

One of the great mysteries of childhood is how a bossy, primadonna sister who never once gave a thought to the incredible impositions she placed upon her victimbrother changes with age and comes to trust and value the opinion of the younger sibling. My sister is one such person, and as a result of this change I've been asked to critique her art on numerous occasions. This doesn't make me an expert, but I like to think that I'm reasonably cultured.

Over the past few weeks the PBE has been updated with new splash arts for a few champions with outdated or problematic art, and some of them have caused a bit of a stir. In particular I'd like to focus on Lux's new splash as well as Morgana's and Miss Fortune's new splashes. I've included the full links so you can view everything at your leisure.

The reactions to Lux's new splash art have been thoroughly divided, critics seem to either love the new art or hate it. While to an extent there were similar reactions to the new Morgana and Miss Fortune splash arts, they were significantly more muted. I believe there are a number of important factors at play which have caused the polarization.

First and foremost, consider Lux's current splash art. The style comes from a very different era in Riot's artistic direction, and lacks the crispness and detail that more recent champions and skins feature. Simply comparing classic Lux to Imperial Lux makes the difference plain. As a result the current splash is, for many players, superior in large part because it doesn't look dated.

In addition, it's hard to deny that the new splash art has a number of prominent features that are very well executed. The prismatic light behind Lux is stunning, and affects the background in interesting ways. The slight translucence of her shawl is very well done, and her armor and garments are engraved with excellent detail. A great deal of skill was obviously employed in the art's creation.

Where the splash art falters, and what causes many players to stumble, is in aspects of Lux herself. Her hair and face are somewhat washed out, causing her to have a distinct "Barbie" feel. More importantly, it's hard to imagine what sort of magical diet is required to maintain that figure, and what sort of Demacian yoga she must do to be comfortable in that position. Her waist is roughly half the size of her hips or twice the width of her wrists, and her posture is awkward (particularly around the neck and her right wrist). For many players these flaws distract from the other qualities of the art and cause them to dislike it.

The Morgana and Miss Fortune splash arts are similarly very well executed, but because they have fewer distractions or flaws they failed to draw quite the same reaction as Lux. The only major flaw in the Morgana art is her surprising lack of kidneys (an issue she shares with Lux), but she tends to get a little extra slack as she's not exactly human. Miss Fortune might also have a similar problem, but because the view point is from her side it isn't as obvious and her hips aren't wide enough to accentuate the potential issue. Having only one notable, and either explicable or obtuse, flaw saves these two skins from the polarized reactions to Lux.

Part of what caused our heroines to evolve oddly thin waists, and many players to ignore them, are the same forces that sparked outrage when Arcade Sona's splash art appeared with significantly smaller breasts than her other skins. A significant portion of the playerbase consists of players who, due to hormones and/or cultural norms, tend to obsess over the unrealistic standards of beauty we expect from women and girls. While I'm sure there were some well-meaning players who simply balk at inconsistency, I would be shocked if "big breasts good, small breasts bad" wasn't the underlying motivation for most of the uproar.

Similarly, the impossible anatomical proportions of these skins are overlooked because they are what our culture expects from women, even though Photoshop is required to achieve them. Even though the splash arts display a great deal of skill, they still fall prey to the cultural demand for impractical figures.

Despite Runeterra being a fantasy, part of the appeal of such worlds is the idea of living there amongst the heroes and villains we control on the battlefield. Lux is no Riven, but when the proportions and pose of a splash art break suspension of disbelief it becomes harder to place ourselves in that world.

To be honest, I don't think the new art is beyond salvaging. Much like the original Leona splash art, only a few, relatively minor modifications should shift it from oddly uncomfortable to strong and compelling. That said I don't imagine players will care all that much a week or so after it's released, there are far more problematic splash arts (Tango Evelyn anyone?) which no one brings up save for a quick joke.